<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (6) TMI 1493 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456569</link>
    <description>Karnataka HC ruled that Official Liquidator must pay rentals to landlord after taking possession of leased premises during company liquidation. Court held that while rental arrears before liquidator&#039;s possession constitute preferential claims under Section 476 of Companies Act 1956, rentals after liquidator assumes possession become winding-up costs. Liquidator granted three-month grace period from possession date to decide continuation. After this period, continued possession requires rental payments to landlord. Court directed liquidator to recover amounts from secured creditor who insisted on retaining locked premises, making creditor liable for rental payments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2024 20:46:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 1493 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456569</link>
      <description>Karnataka HC ruled that Official Liquidator must pay rentals to landlord after taking possession of leased premises during company liquidation. Court held that while rental arrears before liquidator&#039;s possession constitute preferential claims under Section 476 of Companies Act 1956, rentals after liquidator assumes possession become winding-up costs. Liquidator granted three-month grace period from possession date to decide continuation. After this period, continued possession requires rental payments to landlord. Court directed liquidator to recover amounts from secured creditor who insisted on retaining locked premises, making creditor liable for rental payments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>